There is dwindling space for sincere independent accountability reporting on big tech like this to a) be created, since it's incredibly resource-intensive and so many resources flow from Silicon Valley, and b) actually reach people, since more platforms are now owned or otherwise influenced by interested parties.

Thank you for looking. Please do spread this kind of reporting in your communities, and subscribe to investigative outlets when you can.

▲ walterbell 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> OpenAI has closed many of its safety-focussed teams

A paper with "ideas to keep people first" was (coincidentally?) published today:

  • Worker perspectives
  • AI-first entrepreneurs
  • Right to AI
  • Accelerate grid expansion
  • Accelerate scientific discovery and scale the benefits. 

  • Modernize the tax base
  • Public Wealth Fund
  • Efficiency dividends
  • Adaptive safety nets that work for everyone
  • Portable benefits

  • Pathways into human-centered work

https://openai.com/index/industrial-policy-for-the-intellige...

▲ almostdeadguy 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This was an excellent piece with many new pieces of information in it. Thanks to you and your coauthor for getting it released.

▲ big_toast 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can see the vote history here[1]. It's always hard to know exactly why something gets buried. I was a little sad to see the story down-ranked when I saw that you were here in the comments.

But the discussion is generally pretty low quality with these sort of posts. People react without having read the story, or with whatever was on their mind already, or are insubstantive, or simply low effort. I don't think you'll lose k-factor not having a bigger post here.

Sometimes if you talk to the mods, they'll let you know their perspective. I generally find they're correct that people are much better at contributing/disseminating new knowledge to the world on more technical topics here.

[1]: https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=47659135

▲

dang 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, I was surprised that it was downranked when I saw that too. Then I realized it had set off the flamewar detector and it was a simple matter to turn it off. I'm glad we got to this in time, because sometimes we don't, and this was an important case not to miss.

▲

throw4847285 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But isn't that circular? If the ranking algorithm used by the mods tends to devalue articles like this because they don't trust the user base to comment intelligently, doesn't that alter the culture of this site to make that more true?

▲

dang 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure what big_toast meant, but we do trust the user base to comment intelligently (which sometimes works and sometimes not), and we don't devalue articles like this.

We do tend to devalue titles like this, or more likely change them to something more substantive (preferably using a representative phrase from the article body), but I'm worried that if I did that here we would get howls of protest, since YC is part of the story.

▲

throw4847285 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm sure you're sick of comments about moderation, but I will say, this makes me more sympathetic to the position you're in.

It's an interesting dilemma. Many very respected publications use provocative titles because of the attention economy. And I'm sure you have good data that provocative titles lead to drive-by comments and flame wars.

But I don't think big_toast was entirely wrong that there is a side effect of sometimes burying articles that are by their nature provocative. And how do you distinguish a flame war over a title from a flame war over content? That's not a leading question. I don't know.

	▲	dang 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For us the litmus test isn't the title, it's whether the article itself can support a substantive discussion on HN. If yes, then we'll rewrite the provocative title to something else, as I mentioned. Ironically this often gives the author more of a voice because (1) the headline was often written by somebody else, and (2) we're pretty diligent about searching in the article itself for a representative phrase that can serve as a good title. If, on the other hand, the title is provocative and the article does not seem like it can support a substantive discussion on HN, we downweight the submission. There are other reasons why we might do that too—for example, if HN had a recent thread about the same topic. How do we tell whether an article can support a substantive discussion on HN? We guess. Moderation is guesswork. We have a lot of experience so our guesses are pretty good, but we still get it wrong sometimes. In the current case, the title is baity while the article clearly passes the 'substantive' test, so the standard thing would have been to edit the title. I didn't do that because, when the story intersects with YC or a YC-funded startup, we make a point of moderating less than we normally do. I know I'm repeating myself but it's pretty random which readers see which comments, and redundancy defends against message loss!

▲

7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]